News From You
We receive dozens of news tips and press releases each week from ftm contributors. We want MORE. And we want to share the raw information as quickly as possible. NEWS FROM YOU is the forum for adding what you know to what we know. Share what you know...or what your hear. We will apply the light-touch of the editors axe for clarity. We will also accept NEWS FROM YOU in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese...without translation. (We do insist on being able to understand what you contribute.) You also must clearly indicate that your contribution is for publication in NEWS FROM YOU.
Please note: we cannot use PDF files, only text and .doc files.
Send us NEWS FROM YOU
Week ending July 21, 2007
from Kelly Griffiths/WorldDMB
Commissioner Reding ignores own expert advice
Insistence on single technology threatens European jobs and investment
In a statement issue today (July 18) entitled “Strengthening the Internal Market for Mobile TV”, the Commission of the European Communitiessaid it would “encourage the implementation of DVB-H” for mobile TV reception in Europe, adding that “agreeing on a common standard would provide advantages for European consumers and industry.”
Members of World DMB– the international, non-governmental organization tasked with promoting the awareness, adoption and implementation of Eureka 147 based technologies worldwide – continue to be mystified by the Commission’s continued unilateral support of DVB-H for mobile television in Europe, apparently to the exclusion of all other mobile TV standards, including those developed by European industry.
search ftm for more on
T-DMB, an ETSI standard developed from the European-funded Eureka project, and a derivative of DAB, has already been used for broadcasting mobile TV services in 14 European countries. It is the world’s most successful mobile TV standard with millions of devices already in the market. It is widely used in Korea, and is the only European technology for mobile TV sanctioned by China’s state regulator.
Commission ignored counsel
The Commission’s communication notes that it has consulted with “all main industry players” via an industry group, the European Mobile Broadcasting Council (EMBC). What it doesn’t say is that it then ignored the counsel of the EMBC which advocated platform neutrality and recommended that the market should be allowed to decide for itself which technologies are best suited for broadcasting television, radio and data to mobile devices in Europe. It has also ignored the advice of device manufacturers who say that the need for only one technology is unnecessary as multi-standard devices are already available. Instead, the communication says that by adding DVB-H to the list of standards published in the Official Journal of the European Union, “Member States will be required to encourage the use of DVB-H for mobile TV,” and that in 2008 it could take “steps to make an open standard (i.e. DVB-H) mandatory.”
Quentin Howard, President of WorldDMB, says: “We, like most of the industry, have always advocated a multi-standard approach including DMB and DVB-H. WorldDMB and the DVB Forum are already collaborating because we recognize this is the only way Europe's citizens will be able to enjoy a variety of mobile services within the timescale the Commission would like. Europe’s citizens and economy will not benefit from EC intervention that restricts technology and innovation.”
Mandating DVB-H risks isolating Europe
WorldDMB members from across Europe including the UK, Germany, Italy, France, Denmark and Norway question whether the Commission has, in fact, failed to realize that mandating only DVB-H risks isolating Europe when the huge Asian markets of China and Korea - where most of Europe's mobile phones are manufactured - have already adopted DMB for mobile TV. Indeed, just last week, Italian public broadcaster RAIannounced it has opted for DMB instead of DVB-H for mobile television services. Stefano Ciccotti, chief executive of network provider RaiWay said that a national DVB-H network would have cost €300 million. Extending the existing DMB network in Italy would cost just €8 million.
Commission fails to address barriers to interoperability
One of the Commission's key requirements is the desire for interoperability, i.e. the ability of a mobile TV device to work seamlessly in all 27 EU States. Quentin Howard says: “Interoperability is an ideal which has little to do with the old fashioned ideas about a single technology. One indisputable fact is that spectrum is not available in every state for the DVB-H standard. But perhaps the biggest challenge to interoperability will be the different encryption standards selected by various EU states and telecoms operators.” The Commission has not addressed these major barriers to interoperability.
T-DMB spectrum available now
Unlike DVB-H, which will have to wait up to five years for spectrum to become available in many countries, T-DMB allows the majority of European states to roll out mobile TV services right now, without delay. It is also compatible with DAB for audio radio services, allowing a very flexible approach to digital broadcasting with minimal investment risk.
Multi-standard chips already available
Interoperable silicon chips have already been developed so that years before DVB-H spectrum is available in some states, receivers capable of delivering DAB, T-DMB and DVB-H via one chip will be available. Leading semiconductor manufacturer, Samsung Electronics, has already announced a chipset that supports multi digital mobile TV standards, including DVB-H/T, DAB-IP, ISDB-T and T-DMB for multiple standards in different countries. Other mobile TV chip companies such as Frontier Silicon, Siano and Sharp have already announced multi-standard chips for mobile devices.
T-DMB ticks all the Commission’s boxes when it comes to mobile TV broadcasting. It has been adopted by many countries in Europe and beyond; spectrum is already available for immediate roll out; it is already interoperable with DAB and DAB-IP. Being a European technology, developed from EU funding and ratified in ETSI standards, many high-tech European companies and jobs have already been created to support T-DMB.
Given that the industry is already moving towards multi-standard receiver technology and that T-DMB and DAB-IP are already being used for mobile TV in Europe, as has DBV-H, the Commission should explain its logic in excluding successful European standards from its list.
Limiting flexibility threatens 20 billion Euro market
The Commission’s Communication warns that competitors from Asia “have made significant progress [in mobile TV] and Europe risks losing its competitive edge in mobile services and missing a major opportunity for growth and innovation.” DVB-H has not been adopted by either China or Korea, whereas DMB and DAB have. WorldDMB members ask how mandating DVB-H can possibly minimize those risks.
If Europe wishes to compete with Asia, it must maintain a position of platform neutrality, encouraging all mobile TV standards and letting the market determine how each technology is used by Europe's citizens.
At the rate technology is evolving, it can only be dangerous and imprudent to mandate just one standard for Europe. By limiting the flexibility of individual countries and constraining the whole of Europe to just one platform, the Commission risks stunting the growth of mobile TV, and damaging what, by its own estimation, could be a 20 billion euro market.
from Avril Mahon/EBU
In response to the publication of the EU proposal on Mobile TV, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)* today welcomed the Commission's efforts to foster the development of a new mode of TV delivery across Europe and ensure interoperability and competitiveness of receiving devices. It also emphasized the support that public broadcasters give to new digital services, such as mobile television.
The EBU appreciates that the Commission's Communication does not mandate a single standard for Mobile TV, and encourages it to follow its recommended principle of technological neutrality, i.e. any one technology should not be favored over another.
search ftm for more on
Public Broadcasters believe that the pace of technological development precludes the adoption of any one standard for mobile broadcasting at this stage. They furthermore believe that it should be up to businesses to define attractive business models that will entice consumers to opt for the standard they like best.
Commenting on the newly published proposal the President of the EBU, Fritz Pleitgen (ARD/WDR), said, "Technology alone will not decide the future of Mobile TV. New devices will not be attractive unless they can show what the audience wants to see." He stressed the fact that, "Europe's audiences want outstanding content on all significant platforms. The unique, valuable and diverse content which Europe's public broadcasters produce is a vital part of that offering."
from Simon Dyson / Informa
New research published today reveals that Universal Music Group (UMG) has extended its dominance in the recorded music sector. According to Informa Telecoms & Media publication Music & Copyright, the company was the leader in both the physical and digital music markets in 2006 and is now dominant in both recorded music and music publishing, the first time a company has been in that position.
UMG also came top in terms of the total revenues generated from the exploitation of recorded music copyrights. As physical sales continue to fall, this last measure, which includes ancillary revenues and licensing and neighboring rights revenues as well as transactional revenues, is likely to become the key performance indicator of a record company in the near future.
Major record company market shares in 2006 (%)
Record company |
Physical and digital |
Digital-only |
Universal Music Group |
25.7 |
26.5 |
Sony BMG |
21.2 |
22.5 |
Warner |
13.8 |
16.0 |
EMI |
12.8 |
10.5 |
Others |
27.5 |
24.5 |
Source: Music & Copyright
search ftm for more on
According to Phil Hardy, editor of Music & Copyright, record companies are already making more inclusive deals with artists that feature revenues from ancillary revenue streams, such as touring and merchandising as well as from recorded music sales. “While UMG’s digital share was larger than its combined physical and digital market share, its total revenue share was even bigger at 27.5%. This suggests that it is using its dominance in the physical and digital markets to generate higher revenues from synchronization and direct licensing.
Simon Dyson, Principal Music Analyst at Informa Telecoms & Media added, “EMI was the only major to suffer a fall in the combined physical/digital market share. It also had a lower total revenue market share than its physical/digital sales share. The main reason for this was its poor performance in the US.”
The Music & Copyright research concluded that as revenues from music copyrights are becoming increasingly interlinked and that UMG and its sister music publishing company UMPG are the market leaders of their respective sectors, the total revenue share of the “grand UMG” will in future be higher than the individual recorded music and publishing divisions.
Previous News From You
Week ending June 16, 2007
Week ending June 9, 2007
Week ending June 2, 2007
Week ending May 19, 2007
Week ending April 14, 2007
Week ending April 7, 2007
Week ending March 24, 2007
Week ending March 17, 2007
Week ending March 3, 2007
Week ending February 17, 2007
Week ending February 10, 2007
Week ending February 3, 2007
Week ending January 27, 2007
Week ending January 20, 2007
Week ending January 13, 2007
Week ending December 16, 2006
Week ending December 9, 2006
Week ending December 2, 2006
Week ending November 25, 2006
Week ending November 11, 2006
Week ending November 4, 2006
Week ending October 28, 2006
Week ending October 21, 2006
Week ending October 14, 2006
Week ending October 7, 2006
Week ending September 30, 2006
Week ending September 23, 2006
Week ending September 9, 2006
Week ending August 27, 2006
Week ending July 29, 2006
Week ending July 22, 2006
Week ending July 7, 2006
Week ending July 1, 2006
Week ending June 24, 2006
Week ending June 17, 2006
Week ending June 3, 2006
Week ending May 26, 2006
Week ending May 19, 2006
Week ending April 28, 2006
Week ending April 14, 2006
Week ending April 7, 2006
Week ending March 31, 2006
|